Was Jesus murdered on a cross or a stake with hands above his head?

Answer 1

No. there is absolutely no evidence that Jesus was crucified on a stake.

The Romans sometimes used the traditional 'cross' shape often made by sliding the crossbar (that had a hole in it) over a narrowed top on the upright so that a cross shape resulted. Occasionally the cross was a T-shaped structure. However, in the Gospels we are told that Jesus carried his 'cross'. This suggests that he was crucified on a cross-shaped cross (not a T-bar) and what he carried was almost certainly the cross-bar which would have been made out of roughly hewn bloodstained wood (from earlier executions) and strapped to the arms across the back (lacerated from the scourging), until the victim arrived at the place of execution when his wrists were nailed to the crossbar, he was hoisted up and the crossbar slid over the upright. His feet would then be held together sideways and nailed through both ankles with a single nail. By nailing through the nerves in the wrists and ankles, this meant that the Romans could inflict the maximum pain.

So, the idea of a 'stake' being used is nonsense. Even the term 'crucifixion' comes from the Latin (the language that the Romans spoke) 'Crucis' meaning 'Cross'. Sadly there are those who have these wild 'theories' because they glean a little information somewhere dubious, without actually knowning a great deal about the history behind the Biblical accounts, nor studying more reliable evidence about those times.

Other evidence of Crucifixion on a Cross has come from, among other sources, archaeological discoveries, historical documents relating to such punishments (such as the execution of hundreds of slaves along the Appian Way in Rome when Spartacus led a revolt against the Romans) and records such as wall paintings in the Roman catacombs dating from the middle of the first Century, just 10-20 years after Jesus' death and resurrection.

............................................

probably on a cross because the Romans form of exectution back then was nailing them to a cross with their arms out streached to eaither side

----------

The Romans would not take an interest in forming the cross, they were not Jews. They wouldn't take the time and effort, they were just going to kill Jesus, after all. They weren't idolating the fact that they were going to torture Jesus, to make him suffer, to make fun of him. They wouldn't take the time and effort in doing so, they would just want to cut down a tree and be done with it. So, in conclusion, the proper rendering for Σταυρός would be a pale.

-JoshuaMD

Contrary to the above:The Romans indeed would not fashion a cross specifically for Jesus, as crucifixion was a common occurrence and a means of execution reserved for any non-Roman who was sentenced to death. Roman citizens were beheaded. Therefore crosses were used and re-used over and over again and would be abundant. Jews were not particularly interested in crosses - contrary to the above - as the cross is a Christian symbol that dates back to the earliest church and the crucifixion if the carvings in the Roman catacombs that were fashioned by the earliest Christians are indicative of what actually happened. Some of these carvings date from the time when there would still be Christians around who were actual eyewitnesses to the events and the fact that they carved crosses indicates strongly that the cross was indeed a cross shaped means of execution, and not a stake. In fact, the Greek for stake is πάσσαλος whereas the Greek for cross is σταυρός. It is this term, σταυρός, that is used, for instance, in John's gospel as the means of execution of Jesus, John being the only Gospel writer who was actually an eyewitness. If a stake had been used, then the term would have beenπάσσαλος. Similarly, the word crucifixion comes from crucifixus meaning, in Latin, to nail to a cross or, in Latin, crucis. This refers to an actuall cross - + and not a stake.

So, no matter what fanciful ideas are mooted about the crucifixion of Jesus one cannot fly in the face of historical, archaeological, documental, linguistic and scientific evidence. To suggest otherwise is, frankly, launching into the realms of fantasy.